To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.

Microsoft to offer Linux software?

Yeah... I said the same thing when I read that headline ("WHAT?!?"). Anyway, according to this article at CNN.com, that is the word on the street.

My favortie part of the article though, was this quote:

A recent Microsoft-sponsored study by researcher IDC concluded that servers based on Microsoft's Windows 2000 were cheaper to own and operate when used for networking, storing and sharing files, printing and security, while Linux servers were cheaper to operate when used for Web hosting.

Other than the security comment *grabs fire extinguisher to combat upcoming flames* I would be inclined to agree with that assesment.

Related Stories

09/19/2002 11:02 AM: Microsoft and Network Hardware? by Jim
CNET is reporting that Microsoft is planning on entering the network hardware market. The Redmond, Wash.-based company plans to market five consumer products for wireless networks, and another five pr...

09/06/2001 11:52 PM: DoJ Decides Against Microsoft Split... by Jim
This has been all around the internet today, but I thought I'd post it up for the folks that missed it. The Register tells it like so: The US Department of Justice won't be asking for Microsoft's brea...

08/17/2001 02:10 AM: Microsoft Posts Cumulative Patch for IIS.. by Jim
Hooz wanted to ensure this was posted, so I'll take the reigns and get it done. Microsoft has posted another Security Bulletin for your perusal. They decided to be quite gracious and provide network a...

07/11/2001 10:07 PM: Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate - The Oxymoron... by Jim
OS Opinion has posted an article written by Ken Standard about big, evil Microsoft (tm). On the one hand, Gates is holding up &quot;innovation&quot; and &quot;intellectual property&quot; as badges of ...

06/28/2001 09:46 PM: Microsoft Ruling Overturned... by Jim
This has been posted bloody everywhere today so I felt the need to join in the fun. MSNBC.com has the skinny on the Microsoft Ruling: In a blistering indictment of the judge who ordered the breakup of...

04/10/2001 12:28 AM: Dell + Intel + Microsoft = Satan(?) by Hooz
I stumbled across this link while surfin' through Stomped this evening and I must say it made me chuckle. I suppose I shouldn't be, but I am still amazed at the ego that some of the industry's big-wi...

03/09/2001 02:31 AM: Microsoft's (Second) Biggest Fear by Hooz
Is a cracked registration scheme for Whistler (aka WindowsXP). It appears that the &quot;unofficial&quot; beta testers have been busy poking and prodding the beta builds of XP and they have actually ...

01/25/2001 01:44 PM: Microsoft Windows CEMeNT! by J0rdan
I generally wouldn't post something like this, but it's like 7:41am and I can't even see properly yet. As I did some haphazard surfing this morning I came upon this over at The Register. Apparently, M...

10/27/2000 04:19 PM: Microsoft Hacked?!? Hehehe... by Hooz
Ah yes... The mighty Microsoft has been violated! Not really a *new* thing, but it is entertaining nonetheless. Here's the scoop (Spotted on Stomped): THE BREAK-IN was discovered Wednesday by Micro...

08/17/2000 04:41 PM: Microsoft to port its applications to Linux? by nitro_fish
Is it true! Can it really be? Well according to Paul Thurrott of WinInfo it is. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Decide for your self, it will still probably be a long time till we see anything...

Comment

eFrisky
Euro-liberal

Posts: 581
Joined: 2002-01-20

#20286 Posted on: 12/13/2002 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Hooz

A recent Microsoft-sponsored study by researcher IDC concluded that servers based on Microsoft's Windows 2000 were cheaper to own and operate when used for networking, storing and sharing files, printing and security, while Linux servers were cheaper to operate when used for Web hosting.

I was already under the impression that M$ are "cheap on security".

Printing with Freesco will cost you a floppy disc and an old 386.
Freesco supports lots of NICs.
Freesco can work nicely with SAMBA for filesharing.

So where's the advantage of Win2000?

I have the displeasure of using a Win2000 server at work; running one tiny little app. We currently are stuck with Netmeeting desktop sharing (!) for remote control (supplier bull&^%$). One of us has to drive over to the remote site to restart the dropped connection or the app. Is it a stable server? Hell, yeah... my absolute first choice! (dripping sarcasm)Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant

Comment

duke
Euro-liberal

Posts: 588
Joined: 2000-05-19

#20287 Posted on: 12/13/2002 01:40 AM
From glancing through this article, I got the impression that this is a prediction by an outside market research group (META Group ) and may be nothing more then idle speculation.

On the server side - Micro$oft is betting the OS farm on .NET - if that flops anywhere near as badly as I expect it to, they won't have much *choice* but to start supporting LINUX with ported server applications - they're *already* losing out in the server market for OSs and a LOT of applications (Web Servers being the biggest example).
2xCel500 (oc600) on a BP6 and 2xCel533 (oc600) on another BP6 | 2xXP1800+ on a s2460 and 1xXP1800+ (so far) on a s2462

Comment

Murdock
Captain

Posts: 1370
Joined: 2001-07-02

#20289 Posted on: 12/13/2002 02:50 AM

Originally posted by eFrisky We currently are stuck with Netmeeting desktop sharing (!) for remote control

This may be a terribly stupid question, but why wouldn't you use TSClient for that?The pathetic state of our government will never change unless we stop electing politicians and start electing public servants.
Remember: There was once a time when the term "politician" had a very negative connotation.

Comment

Hooz
Administrator

Posts: 2388
Joined: 2000-03-29

#20290 Posted on: 12/13/2002 02:53 AM

Originally posted by QuintLeo On the server side - Micro$oft is betting the OS farm on .NET - if that flops anywhere near as badly as I expect it to, they won't have much *choice* but to start supporting LINUX with ported server applications - they're *already* losing out in the server market for OSs and a LOT of applications (Web Servers being the biggest example).

How does the old quote go? "Don't knock it 'til you try it."

Actually .NET, even in early stages of development, is a very nice server OS. It brings a lot to the table too, but we'll have to see how the world takes to it when it is finally released.

Also remember that webservers make up a very small percentage of actual "server" sales. It's the Enterprise, or "Big Iron" arena that MS needs to make a splash in.
[size=1][url="http://www.2cpu.com"]2CPU.com[/url] - Because two are always better than one!
Are you folding? [url="http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_summary.php?s=&t=3074"]2CPU.com Folding@Home Team[/url][url="http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=19979"]My Heatware[/url][/size]

Comment

questionlp
the Cowardly Tech

Posts: 323
Joined: 2002-02-14

#20291 Posted on: 12/13/2002 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Murdock This may be a terribly stupid question, but why wouldn't you use TSClient for that?

Windows 2000 Professional doesn't include Terminal Services built in like Windows XP Professional and Windows 2000 {Advanced Server,Server} does.

Comment

Originally posted by questionlp Windows 2000 Professional doesn't include Terminal Services built in like Windows XP Professional and Windows 2000 {Advanced Server,Server} does.

Exactly... that's why I was wondering why eFrisky wasn't using TS as it was stated that they were using a Win2000 server.

(although I suppose one could assume that a Win2000 server was just a server running any particular flavour of Win2k, and a Win2000 Server was running win2k Server... advanced, or otherwise)The pathetic state of our government will never change unless we stop electing politicians and start electing public servants.
Remember: There was once a time when the term "politician" had a very negative connotation.

Comment

QuintLeo
SMP? How do you want it?

Posts: 1863
Joined: 2002-06-07

#20295 Posted on: 12/13/2002 04:25 AM
Other than it's installed base, NetWare is pretty much a dead issue - if you've already got it up and running, it's fine - but there's less-expensive options out there now that work JUST as well for everything Netware does (other than running it's propriatary add-in stuff).
2xCel500 (oc600) on a BP6 and 2xCel533 (oc600) on another BP6 | 2xXP1800+ on a s2460 and 1xXP1800+ (so far) on a s2462

Comment

dsball
Registered User

Posts: 93
Joined: 2001-08-08

#20296 Posted on: 12/13/2002 04:39 AM

Originally posted by njpluta What happened to Netware?
It still does storing and sharing files, printing and security better than Microsoft Windows.

Comment

burmese
Registered User

Posts: 186
Joined: 2002-01-20

#20297 Posted on: 12/13/2002 10:29 AM

Originally posted by dsball Exactly, Netware still rules for straight up File and Print services.

Yep! Had it running here for 5 years now, supporting some 20-odd PC's and Macs. AMD K6-2/350 w/256Mb Netware 5(now) server and it gets rebooted maybe twice a year, if that. If/When we upgrade we'll probably use a Linux Samba server. I love it when those outfits that are constantly calling IT people like me to do surveys start their questions off with something MS-centric and hang up as soon as they find out I'm using something weird like Netware. Such a round answer just doesn't fit into their square-peg surveys.
~\_/~\_O
Burmese

Comment

Athemeus
SMP Decepticon

Posts: 576
Joined: 2002-03-02

#20298 Posted on: 12/13/2002 10:50 AM
The only way I think you could concievably bend the numbers to make Windows look cheaper as a server is in general that you don't have to pay the people who run it as much. And that's a very false savings, because personnel who don't know very much can and WILL cost you big down the line.
2 x 2.8 Xeons on a PC-DL
I am an out of control, hardware junkie.

Comment

zaphod78
Registered User

Posts: 36
Joined: 2002-10-15

#20299 Posted on: 12/13/2002 11:19 AM
Netware huh?

I did a 1.5 year stint at Xerox doing development on Netware. It didn't exactly leave me with the warmest of fuzzies concerning Netware. Their dev docs are horribly out of date, their "support" was a joke (We paid about $170k for dev support, we were supposed to get a dedicated software engineer, we ended up getting a network engineer who never touched software development outside of writing "Hello World" .NLMs). As an end-user, their "Netware Client for Windows" completely blows performance-wise (Although I'm sure Microsoft is partially to blame) and from having to deal with various people within the company, it seems to me that the company seems to have lost it's direction. (Use NWAdmin, no wait, use ConsoleONE, no wait! iManage is coming out, no wait....)

As far as I'm concerned, Netware has one advantage: NDS. And as far as that is concerned, now that Microsoft has Active Directory (which is LDAP-based) and Linux has got various LDAP packages availible, it's only a matter of time before their lead in this area erodes to nothing. Netware is hosed. Whatever Netware can do, other OS'es can probably do better (in the case of Linux, cheaper) and the company seems to be too busy figuring out which way is up to start competing again.

If you currently have a Netware-based infrastructure, maybe you should start making plans to migrate out of it. If you don't, then don't bother looking at Netware.

As a side note, I do concur that the OS is extremely stable. However, that in of itself wasn't enough to justify putting up with the god-forsaken "Netware Client".
Zaphod78
-Iron Programmer

Comment

snowsquirrel
Sheik of SMP

Posts: 188
Joined: 2001-03-26

#20300 Posted on: 12/13/2002 11:22 AM
Not sure how many people know this, but MS did make Internet Explorer 5, and Outlook Express 5 for Solaris. I am not sure if they made any other versions, or for dif OS's.

I was actually pretty shocked when I found out.

Comment

JoeBleed
SMP OffWorld

Posts: 1255
Joined: 2001-03-23

#20301 Posted on: 12/13/2002 12:49 PM

Originally posted by zaphod78 Netware huh?

I did a 1.5 year stint at Xerox doing development on Netware. It didn't exactly leave me with the warmest of fuzzies concerning Netware. Their dev docs are horribly out of date, their "support" was a joke (We paid about $170k for dev support, we were supposed to get a dedicated software engineer, we ended up getting a network engineer who never touched software development outside of writing "Hello World" .NLMs). As an end-user, their "Netware Client for Windows" completely blows performance-wise (Although I'm sure Microsoft is partially to blame) and from having to deal with various people within the company, it seems to me that the company seems to have lost it's direction. (Use NWAdmin, no wait, use ConsoleONE, no wait! iManage is coming out, no wait....)

As far as I'm concerned, Netware has one advantage: NDS. And as far as that is concerned, now that Microsoft has Active Directory (which is LDAP-based) and Linux has got various LDAP packages availible, it's only a matter of time before their lead in this area erodes to nothing. Netware is hosed. Whatever Netware can do, other OS'es can probably do better (in the case of Linux, cheaper) and the company seems to be too busy figuring out which way is up to start competing again.

If you currently have a Netware-based infrastructure, maybe you should start making plans to migrate out of it. If you don't, then don't bother looking at Netware.

As a side note, I do concur that the OS is extremely stable. However, that in of itself wasn't enough to justify putting up with the god-forsaken "Netware Client".

I agree about the nw client on 9x machines but the ones for NT based seem to do ok for me. Oh.. most of the time unless you wanted the user to do some admin type work on a netware server it is a good idea to just use MS's netware client. I loved our little netware 4.11 server. only time we brought it down was for extended power outages that our ups couldn't handel or when we finaly upgraded the disk i/o and space.
They do need to get their plan settled and in a straight line but as for them constantly changing things.. look at MS's history.
I have a demo version of 6 i have been meaning to look at but have yet to do it.

That is my thoughts about netware. i like it. corse i need to sit down and learn linux though.E-Mail, HeatWareIt is OK to let your mind go blank, but please turn off the sound.

Comment

fig_wright
SMP Fresher

Posts: 733
Joined: 2002-02-05

#20302 Posted on: 12/13/2002 10:01 PM
Hey snowsquirrel, did you ever use IE5 on Solaris? Boy did it suck. I was lucky if it stayed alive for more than 10 minutes! Which was a shame, because it was nicer in feel than the nasty Netscape 4.5 at the time...
MarkMSI K7D-L|XP1700x2 @1584MHz|TaiSol CGK760092x2|Crucial 1792MB PC2100 ECC CAS-2.5 @140MHz|Enermax EG465P-VE 431W|Abit Siluro GF3 Ti-200 128MB DVi/TV-out|SBLive! 5.1|NEC USB 2.0|Seagate 7200RPM Barracuda 30GB|Win XP & Ubuntu Hardy

Comment

Yer joking right?
Is it the Red wire or the Yellow?? Your case-mod will self destruct in 5 seconds!

Comment

curmudgeon
Registered User

Posts: 470
Joined: 2002-10-13

#20304 Posted on: 12/16/2002 08:39 AM

Originally posted by fig_wright Hey snowsquirrel, did you ever use IE5 on Solaris? Boy did it suck. I was lucky if it stayed alive for more than 10 minutes! Which was a shame, because it was nicer in feel than the nasty Netscape 4.5 at the time...
Mark

I did...for a couple of years, on an 2x200MHz Ultra 2 running Solaris 2.6. It was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than Nutscrape 4.0x-4.7., both in asthetics and in stability.

The M$ installer wouldn't let it install on Solaris 8 and they never offered it for Solaris x86 or I would still be seriously considering using it.

Whomever wrote the Microsoft Linux article fell for the gag that's been around for quite a while, go to http://www.mslinux.org and check it out.

Comment

LRSeriesIII
Aspiring Rocket Scientist

Posts: 1120
Joined: 2002-08-29

#20305 Posted on: 12/17/2002 11:03 AM

Originally posted by fig_wright Hey snowsquirrel, did you ever use IE5 on Solaris? Boy did it suck. I was lucky if it stayed alive for more than 10 minutes! Which was a shame, because it was nicer in feel than the nasty Netscape 4.5 at the time...
Mark

I've used it and really liked it. The computer labs here at UMCP have a lot of Sun Ultras running Solaris with IE5. I was using it on an Ultra5 and found it really nice.
->Computers
->Folding for team 3074